1
THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC.,ST(POA) ACT CUM V
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: MEDAK AT
SANGAREDDY.
PRESENT:G.Rajani, Spl. Judge for SC.,ST(POA) Act,cum V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
MONDAY, ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.
OS.No. 32 of 2012
Between:
1. Smt. Akula Rangamma, W/o Veeraiah,aged about 50 years, occ: Household, r/o Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak Districrt.
2. Smt.Dandu Neelamma, W/o Anjaneyulu, aged about 45 years, occ:Household, r/o Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist. …Plaintiffs A N D
1. Tenugu Narayana, S/o Late Gandaiah,aged about 60 years, occ: Agri.
2. Tenugu Durgaiah, s/o Late Gandaiah, aged about 55 years, occ: Employee.
3. Tenugu Ramesh, S/o Late Gandaiah,aged about 42 years, occ: Agri.
4. Tenugu Shekar, s/o Late Gandaiah, aged 40 years,occ:Agri. All are r/o Kandi village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. …Defendants
The suit came up before me for hearing in the presence of M/s S.N.Chary, Md.Mahboob Ali, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and of M/s Joshi Narayana Rao, K.V.Kumar and S.Rajappa, Advocates for Defendants , upon perusal of the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed for Partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant Nos.1 to 4.
2
2.As per the contents of the plaint, one Tenugu Gandaiah was the owner and pattadar of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.698 admeasuring
Ac.07.04 Gts situated at Kandi village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak
District. The said Tenugu Gandaiah died about thee years back leaving behind four sons (defendants) two daughters (Plaintiffs). The entire property left by him is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants. Tenugu Lachamma w/o Gandaiah died about six years back. Tenugu Gandaiah has another brother viz. Balaiah and they partitioned the properties succeeded from their father in two equal shares and Tenugu Gandaiah became the owner and possessor of Ac.03.22 Gts and Balaiah became the owner and possessor of Ac.3.22 Gts equally.
After the death of Tenugu Balaiah, his share of land was mutated in the name of his wife viz. Tenugu Shamamma and during life time of Tenugu
Gandaiah, he purchased the share of Tenugu Balaiah i.e. Ac.03.22 Gts from Tenugu Shamamma long back. After the death of Tenugu Gandaiah, the property left by him is in joint possession and enjoyment of the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants which is the suit schedule property. The
Plaintiffs and the Defendants constitute Hindu Joint undivided family and the suit schedule property is ancestral and undivided joint family property of the Plaintiffs and the defendants and they have equal right over the suit schedule property having 1/6th share each in the schedule property. The
Plaintiffs and the defendants are jointly cultivating the suit schedule property by investing proportionate share and also the Plaintiffs taking 3 proportionate yield from the suit schedule property and the defendants have stopped to give proportionate share to the plaintiffs in the year 2010.
When the Plaintiffs requested and demanded the defendants to pay their legitimate share, the defendants refused to pay, upon that the Plaintiffs demanded the defendants on 08.01.2012 for partition and allotment of legitimate share in the suit schedule property, the defendants angrily shouted and did not consent for partition and hence the suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property into six equal shares and allotment of two shares i.e. one share each to the
Plaintiffs by metes and bounds by passing preliminary decree.
3.The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed common written statement after receipt of summons. The defendants admitted the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the defendants and pleaded that their father T.Gandaiah died in the year 2007, but not about three years back and their mother
Lachamma died in the year 1996 but not about six years back. They further stated that Tenugu Gandaiah and his brother have partitioned the above said survey number and half of the extent was mutated in the name of Gandaiah and remaining extent is in the name of Tenugu Balaiah and they got mutated their names as pattadar in the revenue records. They denied that during the life time of Gandaiah he purchased survey No.698.
Ac.3.22 Gts from T.Shamamma and stated that infact the defendants have purchased the share of T.Shamamma in Sy.No.698/2 admeasuring 4
Ac.3.22 Gts, situated at Kandi village through registered sale deed vide document No.2182/93 dt.19.07.1993 out of their own earnings and got mutated their names as pattadars in the revenue records, through form
No.1 of Records of Rights for the year 1989-90 after 2000. They also contended that during the life time of Tenugu Gandaiah he partitioned the properties standing in his name in Sy.No.698/1 admeasuring ac.03.22 Gts among his sons i.e. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the year 1992 but the patta was standing on his name and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their father have resided separately in their allotted portion and cultivating the land separately. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 was performed about 30 years back and the marriage of Plaintiff No.2 was performed in the year 1983 and sufficient amount was given to them in their marriages and after partition of the land standing in the name of their father the defendants are cultivating the land along with land purchased from Tenugu Shamamma and individual pahani patrikas and title deed books were also granted and they have also availed the loan from State Bank of India Kandi for the development of the land.
The contention of the plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs and defendants succeeded the entire property left by Tenugu Gandaiah and became coparceners as joint Hindu undivided family members by investing the proportionate share and also taking proportionate yields from the suit schedule property and stopped giving proportionate share in the year 2010 for which the Plaintiffs have demanded to pay legitimate share in the suit 5 schedule property and the defendants have refused for the same is absolutely false and created story for the purpose of filing the suit. The defendants further stated that the daughter of defendant No.1 Sabitha was given in marriage to Nagaraj the son of Plaintiff No.1 about 3 years back, but the said person is addicted to bad habits and developed illicit intimacy with another lady namely Sri Latha , he did not care his wife and plaintiff
No.1 and her family members have tortured her to bring additional dowry and sent her away about two years back and as such the defendant No.1 and his daughter have lodged a complaint against the Plaintiffs and her husband, her son and daughter under section 498-A IPC and in the said case, the Plaintiff No.1 has settled the permanent alimony to the daughter of Defendant No.1 and due to that settlement the criminal case was ended in acquitted, but by keeping the grudge against the defendants, the
Plaintiffs filed this present suit to take revenge against them and at no point of time the plaintiffs have cultivated the suit lands in Sy.No.698/1 which is already partitioned among the defendants during the life time of their father and Sy.No.698/2 is the self acquired property of the defendants and as such the claim of the plaintiffs for partition of the suit schedule property is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed , the concept of Hindu Joint Family was disturbed in the year 1992 itself by the partition effected by their father Gandaiah among Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition and separate possession and the suit liable to be dismissed.
6
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether there was already partition between Gandaiah and his sons in the year 1992 in respect of the property admeasuring ac.03.22 Gts in Sy.No.698?
2. Whether the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 purchased the property admeasuring Ac.3.22 Gts in Sy.No.698/2 with their own funds and it is their self acquired property?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit properties?
4. To what relief?
ISSUE No.1:
5.This issue relates to the plea raised by the defendants in the written statement that there was already partition in the year 1992 between
Gandaiah and his sons in respect of Ac.03.22 gts in the year 1992. As contended by the defendants, during the life time of Tenugu Gandaiah (father) he has partitioned the property standing in his name in
Sy.No.698/1 admeasuring Ac.3.22 Gts among his sons i.e. Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 in the year 1992 but the patta was standing in his name and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and their father have resided separately in their allotted portion and cultivating the lands separately.
6.On the other hand, the contention of the Plaintiffs is that the entire 7 suit property is the undivided ancestral property of their father Gandaiah and the same was not partitioned by metes and bounds and Plaintiffs being the daughters of said late Gandaiah who died about two years back are entitled to have equal rights in the suit schedule property and having a share of 1/6th each in the suit schedule property.
7.To substantiate their respective pleas raised by both the parties the plaintiffs have examined, the Plaintiff No.1 as Pw.1 and marked Ex.A1 to
A7 in support of the plaintiffs case. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Khasara
Pahany for the year 1954-55, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Record of
Rights for the year 1979-80, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Records of rights for the year 1989-90, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Pahany for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01,
Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahany for the year 2004-05 and Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07.
8.Pw.1 in her evidence has reiterated the contents of plaint. During her cross examination she stated that the total extent of suit land is Ac.07.04
Gts situated at Kandi village and she admitted that her father Gandaiah and Balaiah are sons of Tenugu Lachamma and their paternal grand mother has acquired the suit schedule property from her parents and while answering the other suggestions she has categorically denied the suggestion that there was a partition in the year 1992 itself and the 8 defendants got partitioned the suit lands and there are no properties available for partition. Except this suggestion to Pw.1 which was categorically denied by her, the defendants have not adduced any evidence in order to establish the alleged partition in the year 1992 between their father Gandaiah and defendant Nos.1 to 4.
9.The defendant No.1 has filed his chief affidavit as Dw.1, but thereafter he did not turn up for cross examination and as such his evidence affidavit was eschewed by my predecessor on 6.7.2015
Defendant No.2 has filed chief affidavit as Dw.2 and also filed the chief affidavit of one Md.Vaheed and G.Laxmaiah as Dws.3 and 4 to substantiate the defendant's plea. In the chief affidavit Dw.2 has also claimed that they have partitioned the suit schedule properties in
Sy.No.698 admeasuring Ac.3.22 Gts during the life time of their father among defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the year 1992 and their father resided separately by cultivating the land fell to his share. During the cross examination, he deposed that his father and his brothers have partitioned their properties, but he does not know the year of partition and the property partitioned by them is ancestral property, except stating as above, in the chief affidavit and admitting during the cross examination, that he does not know the year of partition between his father and among their brothers. No single document has been filed to establish the said partition in the year 1992 among the father of the defendants and the 9 defendant Nos.1 to 4. Even Dws. 3 and 4 have deposed the same thing regarding the partition in the year 1992 between the father of the defendants and D1 to D4, but no documents are filed to substantiate or prove the said partition that took place in the year 1992. During the cross examination Dw.3 and 4 have also stated that they cannot say in which survey number, the defendants have partitioned their lands.
10. Therefore the above evidence of Pw.1 and admissions of Dws. 2,3 and 4 during their cross examination clearly show that there is no document or any oral evidence to support the said partition that took place in the year 1992, which clearly indicates that there was no such partition to the suit schedule properties among the father of the defendants and
Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Further as seen from the documents filed by the plaintiffs i.e. Ex.A1 which is the Khasara Pahany for the year 1954-55 it shows that the property in Sy.No.698/1 an extent of Ac.07.04 Gts stands in the name of Tenugu Lachamma who is the paternal grand mother of the plaintiffs and defendants as admitted by Pw.1 during her cross examination. The Khasara Pahany for the year 1979-80 which is marked as Ex.A2 (Record of Rights) shows that Sy.No.698/1 an extent of Ac.3.22
Gts stands in the name of Gandaiah s/o Durgaiah and Sy.No.698/2 an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts stands in the name of Balaiah, s/o Durgaiah, in support of the pleadings raised by both the Plaintiffs and defendants that the property in Sy.No.698 an extent of Ac.07.04 Gts was partitioned 10 among the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants and his brother viz.
Tenugu Balaiah in equal shares and Tenugu Gandaiah has become the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts and
Balaiah has become the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts respectively.
11.Ex.A3 the Record of Rights for the year 1989-90 shows the nature of acquisition of property was through inheritance at column No.10 which shows the name of Gandaiah (father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants) as possessor to an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts and the names of sons of
Balaiah( brother Gandaiah) as possessor to an extent of Ac.03.22 Gts through inheritance.
12.Ex.A5 also shows the name of Gandaiah as possessor to an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts in Sy.No.698/A , wherein it shows the names of Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 as possessors in Sy.No.698/AA1, AA2, AA3, and AA4 to an extent of Ac0.36 Gts, 0.35 Gts, 0.36 Gts and 0.35 Gts respectively.
13.Ex.A6 is the Adangal Pahany for the year 2004-05 which also shows the names of Gandaiah and Defendant Nos.1 to 4 as possessors similar to
Ex.A5. Likewise, Ex.A7Adangal Pahany for the year 2006-07 also shows the similarly entries of names and extents as in Ex.A5 and A6.
11
14.The above documents Ex.A2 to A7 clearly show that the suit schedule land in Sy.No.698/A stands in the name of father of the Plaintiffs and defendants even till 2006-07 and they also show the shares of
Gandaiah and his brother Balaiah in respect of Sy.Nos.698/1 and 698/2 of
Ac.3.22 Gts each which indicates the partition between Gandaiah and his brother Balaiah. But Ex.A3 to A7 show the names of the sons of Balaiah and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land in Sy.No.698/2, whereas
Ex.A4 to A7 show the names of D1 to D4 in respect of the land in
Sy.No.698/AA showing different extents standing in the names of D1 to
D4. Therefore there is no proof for the alleged partition in the year 1992 in respect of Ac.3.22 Gts of the part of suit schedule property in Sy.No.698/1 between Gandaiah and his sons and as such the suit properties are available for partition. Hence this issue is answered accordingly as against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2:
15.This issue relates to the claim raised by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the written statement that they have purchased the share of the brother of his father Balaiah an extent of Ac.3.22 Gts in Sy.No.698/2 with their own funds and it is their self acquired property. To substantiate this contention, the defendants have examined as Dws.2 to 4 and Dw.2 who is none other than the second son of Gandaiah has narrated the same facts as mentioned in his written statement stating that after partition of the ancestral property between their father and his brother they have 12 purchased the share of their Junior Paternal uncle in Sy.No.698/2 admeasuring Ac.3.22 Gts at Kandi village through registered sale deed vide document No.2182/93, dt.19.08.1993 from the wife of Balaiah viz.
Shamamma and mutated their names as pattadars in the revenue records in the year 1989-90 extended upto 2000 and they are cultivating the purchased land along with the land given by their father under partition and they have also availed loan from State Bank of India, Kandi for development of land.
16. During the evidence of Dw.2, the defendants have marked Ex.B1 to
B4. Ex.B1 is the original sale deed vide document No.501, dt.11.02.1994,
Ex.B2 is original registered gift settlement deed vide document
No.2182/93,dt.19.07.1993, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Fasli 1424 containing 4 pahanies and Ex.B4 is the rectification deed dt. 28.10.1993.
Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed dt.11.02.1994 in the name of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 as purchasers from one Tenugu Anjaneyulu, s/o
Balaiah and Tenugu Padma w/o Tenugu Anjaneyulu, (vendors) under which they have purchased Ac.1.31 Gts in Sy.No.698 of Kandi village,
Sangareddy mandal for consideration of Rs.43,500/-. Ex.B2 is registered gift settlement deed executed on 19.07.1993 by Tenugu Krishna, s/o
Balaiah in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of the land in
Sy.No.684 an extent of Ac.1.31 Gts of Kandi village, Ex.B4 is the rectification deed dated 28.10.1993 wherein the Sy.No.684 was corrected 13 as Sy.No.698 which was mistakenly mentioned as Sy.No.684 in Ex.B2 gift settlement deed. Ex.B3 is set of 4 pahanies for fasli 1424 in the name of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 for an extent of Ac.01.21 Gts each respectively in
Sy.Nos.698/1, 698/AA1, 698/AA2, 698/AA3 and 698/AA4.
17. The contention of the defendants is that since the defendants have purchased the share of Tenugu Balaiah which was inherited by his wife
Tenugu Shamamma after his death which was purchased by them by way of registered sale deed from the son of Tenugu Balaiah under Ex.B1 in
Sy.No.698 an extent of Ac.1.31 Gts and the remaining extent of Ac.1.31
Gts was gifted by the son of Tenugu Krishna, s/o Tenugu Balaiah and by virtue of Ex.B1, B2 and B4 they have become the absolute owners and pattadars for the entire extent of Ac.3.22 Gts under the said documents and their names were also mutated for the said land and pattadar pass books were also issued and the said property is no more available for the partition as they have purchased it from their own funds and it is their self acquired property and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share.
18. In support of their case, the defendants have also examined DWs.3 and 4 the neighbouring land owners while D2 was examined as Dw.2.
During the cross examination, Dw.2 has stated that he has filed the registered document to show that the suit land is his self acquired property and that he has purchased Ac.3.22 Gts, but he denied that he has not filed 14 any document to show that it is his self acquired property. He further admitted that he has not filed pattadar pass books in his name in the court and land of his Junior Paternal Uncle was registered in the names of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4, only under one registered sale deed that the pattadar pass books are in his possession and denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is joint family property. He also denied the suggestion that he has purchased the land from out of the income derived from the land that fell to his share and also denied that Ex.B1 is created by him to reduce the share of others and denied that the plaintiffs are entitled for a share. As seen from Ex.B1 registered sale deed there is no doubt that it is a registered document and registered sale deed in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 under which the son of Balaiah and his wife have sold Ac.1.31 Gts in Sy.No.698 to Defendant Nos.1 to 4 , but Ex.B1 does not show the nature of property and also the reason or purpose of selling the property and also how the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have paid the consideration for purchase of the property under Ex.B1. The alleged gift settlement deed by Tenugu Krishna, s/o Balaiah in favour of Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 dt.19.07.1992 i.e. Ex.B2 shows the gift in favour of Defendant
Nos.1 to 4 for Ac.1.31 Gts in Sy.No.684 which was subsequently rectified as Sy.No. 698 through Ex.B4 Rectification deed. As seen from Ex.B3 the donor Tenugu Krishna was aged about 24 years on the date of execution and he gifted the same in favour of the Donees, who are his brothers ( elder father,s sons), who make sufficient provision for the welfare of 15 benefit of his brothers the Donees and the same was done without consideration and free of cost. It is surprising to see from the contents of
Ex.B2 that the donor who is young to the Donees has gifted the said land under Ex.B2 for making sufficient provision for their welfare which appears to be far from the truth. At this juncture the documents filed for the plaintiffs i.e. Ex.A3, contents of Ex.A3 show the names of D1 to D4 mentioned as owners and possessors to an extent of Ac.0.36 Gts ,
Ac.0.36 Gts, Ac.0.35 Gts and 0.35 Gts respectively i.e. Ac.3.22 Gts in
Sy.No.698 . If the contention of the defendants that they have purchased the share of Balaiah by registered sale deed dt.1.02.1994 from his son
Tenugu Anjaneyulu son of Balaiah and the remaining half share of Ac.1.31
Gts was gifted to them by virtue of registered gift settlement deed dt.19.07.1993 by T.Krishna, s/o Balaiah is true, there is no possibility for the entries in the Record of Rights for the year 1989-90 i.e. Ex.B3 which shows their names as owners and possessors in respect of the half share of Balaiah which is said to have been purchased by them, which is a document much prior to Exs. B1 and B2 which indicates that the alleged registered sale deed dt. 11.02.1994 and the gift settlement deed dt.19.07.1993 are created documents in order to deprive the share of the plaintiffs. Therefore the half share of Balaiah which was said to have been purchased by the defendants might have been purchased by their father
Gandaiah for the benefit of the defendants. Ex.A3 also clearly shows that the said property in Sy.No.698/1 and 698/2 was inherited by Gandaiah 16 and Balaiah which shows makes it clear that it is ancestral property.
Therefore from the entries in Ex.A3 it is very much clear that the evidence of Dw.2 and the contention of the defendants that they have purchased the share of Balaiah in the year 1994 and become absolute owners and also that the son of Balaiah has gifted the remaining share in the year 1993 by which they have become absolute owners to the half share of
Balaiah is nothing but a created story, in order to give a colour that half of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.698/2 is their self acquired property.
Though the defendants have examined Dws.3 and 4 in support of their case, their evidence during their cross examination clearly shows that they have no knowledge about the suit schedule property and also about the partition among the father of the Plaintiffs and the defendants and his brother. Therefore the contention of the defendants that they have purchased Ac.3.22 Gts in Sy.No.698/2 with their own funds and it is their self acquired property cannot be accepted and is not proved in view of my above findings. Hence this point is answered accordingly against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3:
19.This issue relates to whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that the suit property is ancestral Hindu undivided Joint
Family property and they being the daughters of late Gandaiah are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. Whether the plaintiffs are 17 entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule property, has to be seen with reference to the evidence on plaintiffs' side. As held by me under the above two issues there is no doubt that the suit schedule property is not partitioned between Gandaiah and his sons in the year 1992 in respect of the property in Sy.No.698/1 and the property in Sy.No.698/2 is not the self acquired property of the defendants. Now coming to the evidence of Pw.1, the documents marked by the plaintiffs i.e. Ex.A1 to A8 clearly show that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of their father
Gandaiah as evident from Ex.A3, the same is also admitted by Dw.2 during his cross examination that the property partitioned ( between
Gandaiah and his brother) is ancestral property. The contention of the defendants in written statement and also in the evidence of Dw.2 is that the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 was performed about 35 years back and the marriage of the plaintiff No.2 was performed in the year 1983 by providing sufficient amount and since the suit schedule property is their self acquired property by virtue of the partition between their father and themselves and the remaining property is purchased by them, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share. But it is already decided by me in issue
Nos.1 and 2 that the suit schedule property is not partitioned in the year 1992 and it is ancestral property of Gandaiah. Though it is contended by the plaintiffs, that it is Undivided Hindu Joint Family Property, no evidence or not even single scrap of paper is filed by the Plaintiffs to establish the joint possession of the suit schedule property along with the defendants 18 and as deposed by Pw.1, that her marriage was performed about 25 years back and as seen from the cause title she is resident of Patancheru which clearly shows she is living at Patancheru and also shows that the Plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property and there is no evidence to establish that they are receiving their share of income from out of the usfructs of the suit suit schedule property and therefore the alleged jointness is not proved by the Plaintiffs. But since the plaintiffs are able to establish that there was no partition in the year 1992 and the suit property is ancestral property they are certainly entitled for a share.
20.Now coming to the law which is applicable to the plaintiffs, it is contended by the defendants that the Plaintiff No.1 was married about 35 years back and Plaintiff No.2 was married in the year 1983. During the cross examination of Pw.1 she admitted that her marriage was performed about 25 years back and by the time of her marriage, she was 14 years old and she cannot say when the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed. No evidence is adduced by the Plaintiffs to establish in which years they got married. Therefore as admitted by Pw.1 it can be taken into consideration that she was married about 25 years back and Plaintiff
No.2 was married in the year 1983 as contended by the defendants.
Therefore the marriages of Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were certainly performed prior to the 1986 Amendment Act and therefore the law applicable is the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
19
21.The defendants have raised some vague pleas in their pleadings and also during the cross examination of Pw.1 that this suit is filed falsely to take revenge as a retaliation to criminal case lodged by Defendant No.1 and his daughter against the Plaintiff No.1 and her son under section 498-
A IPC which was later settled by paying permanent alimony to the daughter of Defendant No.1 and in which the Plaintiff No.1 and her son were acquitted which was denied by Pw.1. Even assuming that such a criminal case is filed against the Plaintiff No.1 and her son, it has no relevance to the present suit since the right of plaintiffs in the ancestral property cannot be deprived in view of the criminal case since even as per old Hindu Law share of a member of joint family will be deprived only on certain grounds like the member being a murderer or renouncing the world or conversion of religion since in this case there is no such allegation, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled to a share in the ancestral property of their father. As per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Plaintiffs cannot be considered as coparceners and they are not entitled for equal share of 1/6th share each along with the defendants . They are entitled for a share only in the share of their father by way of Notional partition. If that is considered, the entire plaint schedule property is devided into five shares between the father of the Plaintiffs and defendants and also the defendants by which the father of the Plaintiffs is entitled to 1/5th share and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/30th share each from the share of their father Gandaiah by way of Notional Partition.
20
ISSUE NO.4:
22.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting preliminary decree to divide the suit schedule property into five equal shares between the father of the Plaintiffs and defendants and also defendants by which the father of the Plaintiffs is entitled to 1/5th share and the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1/30th share each in the share of their father Gandaiah by way of notional partition.
Dictated to the Superintendent Cat.III (on deputation), transcribed by
him corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2017.
V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:
Pw1.Smt.Akula Rangamma. Dw.1 Tenugu Narayana. Dw.2 Tenugu Durgaiah. Dw.3 Mohd.Waheed. Dw.4 G.Laxman.
Exhibits marked behalf of plaintiff
1. Ex.A1- Certified copy of Kasara Pahany for the year 1954-55,
2. Ex.A2- Certified copy of Records of Rights for the year 1979-80,
3. Ex.A3-Certified copy of Records of rights for the year 1989-90,
4. Ex.A4- Certified copy of Pahany for the year 1999-2000,
5. Ex.A5-Certified copy of pahany for the year 2000-01,
6. Ex.A6-Certified copy of pahany for the year 2004-05,
7. Ex.A7-Certified copy of pahany for the year 2006-07.
21
Exhibits marked behalf of defendants
1. Ex.B1-Original sale deed vide document
No.501,dt.11.02.1994,
2. Ex.B2-Original registered gift settlement deed vide document No.2182/93, dt.19.07.1993 ,
3. Ex.B3-Certified copy of Fasli 1424 containing 4 pahanies,
4. Ex.B4-Rectification deed dt. 28.10.1993.
V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.